Organizational Conflict Management as Disputing Process The Problem of Social Escalation

Abstract

In this article, organizational conflict management is conceiwdusa "disputingprocess" inwluing the sociul escalation from grievance stage to conflict and dispute stages. The Disputing Process Instrument (DPI) was designed us a way to study these phenomena quantitatively. Seven behuviors are represented in the instrument: conciliatory negutiution, third-party mobilization, overt retaliation, covert retaliation, toleration, avoidance, and discipline. The DPI demonstrated high reliability, content, discriminant, and construct validity relative to wrlier conflict instruments. An empirical study of sociul esculution was conducted among peers with different strengths of informal relations in an electronicsfinn. Thestudy results rewaled that interpersonal problems among weakly tied peers are likely to be contained at thegrievance stage using covert behuviors or to be socially escaluted to disputes involving third parties. More strongly tied peers are likely to emlute their problemsfrom grievances to dyadic confrontations only. These results have implications for understanding disparate resultsfrom enrlier studies of peer conflict in organizations and for arguments regarding the intmdudion of external third-party conflict consulting in organizations. t has recently been proposed that the forms and consequences of organizational conflict can be fruitfully studied I as behavioral processes embedded in larger social systems. Im-

Conflict and Its Management

“…Examining the reverse side of the coin, Pruitt and Rubin (1986) hold that strong bonds-because they are a source of stability in relationships-reduce the likelihood of escalation. Morrill and Thomas' (1992) work, however, finds the opposite; that peers with strong ties are more likely to escalate and those with weaker ties do not. The latter group, instead of escalating, handles the conflicts covertly themselves or rely on third parties.…”

“…The overt interactions between the disputants are the most visible aspect of conflict. These can range from relatively passive actions such as avoiding others (Bergman & Volkema, 1989;Sternberg & Dobson, 1987;van de Vliert, 1990) to defensive responses such as face-saving tactics (TingToomey, Gao, Trubisky, Tang, Kim, Lin & Nishids, 1991), venting emotions (Thomas, 1992) and confrontation (Morrill & Thomas, 1992). More hostile acts include threats, physical force (Sternberg & Dobson, 1987;Sternberg & Soriano, 1984;van de Vliert, 1990), harming others (Thomas, 1976) coercion, disorder, and protest (Schelling, 1960).…”

“…For example, Morrill and Thomas (1992) refer to a context that is an organizational setting. And Druckman and Broome (1991), cautioning against generalizations from the specific context, use the term to indicate the simulation (of Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus) in which his subjects participated.…”

A dialectical analysis of a social justice process: International collaboration in South Africa

“…However, as the bonds between some of the team members grew, the conflict between the South African NGO and British school and the rest of the team escalated in terms of negative attributions and increasing distrust (Krackhardt, 1990;Morrill & Thomas, 1992). Two weeks before Phase 4, underlying, but unaddressed, tensions of the past phases boiled over.…”

A Face Concern Approach to Conflict Management – A Malaysian Perspective

“…Based on this, they suggested five conflict management styles; avoidance, competition, accommodation, collaboration and compromise. In addition to these five conflict management styles, other researchers who have suggested two [22,23] , three [24,25] , four [26,27] , seven [28,29] , eight [30] and nine [31] styles to handle conflict. The dual concern model was challenged by Nicotera [30] .…”